• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
and the three preceding songs of the suffering servant?


Oh and an apology to me. You lied when you said I gave a false statement about Ramsay saying there is no evidence for the essential facts of the NT. See page 236 of The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915)
DOn't hold your breath.
DOC doesn't like being proven* wrong.



*and of course, by proven I mean provided evidence of his false statement.
 
I can always tell when I'm getting into some important information because the attack the messenger mode heats up.


You have GOT to be kidding. This is the most irrational thing I think I've read in this thread so far.

Do you really, honestly think that anyone here thinks you've come close to presenting any important information?

Really?
 
You can't contrive how the Romans decided to put you to death. For example some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.

The Romans had specific execution types for specific crimes, the type of execution reserved for messiahs (enemies of the state), slaves and pirates was crucifixion from before the Babylonian diaspora, thats about 600 years before Jesus turned up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

So to claim that prophets didn't know what would happen to someone who opposed the Roman Empire leaves them and the claimiant looking a bit stupid doesn't it.....
:D
 
The Romans had specific execution types for specific crimes, the type of execution reserved for messiahs (enemies of the state), slaves and pirates was crucifixion from before the Babylonian diaspora, thats about 600 years before Jesus turned up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

So to claim that prophets didn't know what would happen to someone who opposed the Roman Empire leaves them and the claimiant looking a bit stupid doesn't it.....
:D

I think you're a bit off on this one. Without checking when exactly these alleged prophecies were made, they were certainly before Rome had conquered the Jews, so how would they guess that Roman punishments for treason (even if they were current at the time of the prophecy) would ever apply to the Messiah?
 
I have the book. What is the title of the chapter on Bethlehem?

It is not a false statement. Page 236
"The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence."

I await your apology just as I wait for you to;.

I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237. The book is no longer under copyright so you can bring in as much as you want.

Once again the book's title is "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by W. M. Ramsay and you can get it off the internet.
 
Last edited:
I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237. The book is no longer under copyright so you can bring in as much as you want.
insinuation isn't an effective counter argument.
 
Ramsay does talk about Bethlehem in the "The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament" book. You can download the book from the internet. It will take 30 minutes to do on my dial up, I don't have the time to do that and read the book now.

You know, you might check with your library and see if they have the book or can get it through interlibrary loan.

You've "been too busy"? This thread is three years old this month. How long does it take you to read two books?

And even if you are studying them closely, you can't read something else in between?

Actually the thread has been up 16 months.

I think Elizabeth I was reading your Join Date instead of the thread start date.

My apologies, I was wrong. (see how that's done, doc?) I was indeed looking at the join date.

Nonetheless, it takes you 16 months to read two books? Again, even if you are studying them, you can't read something else in between study sessions?
 
I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237. The book is no longer under copyright so you can bring in as much as you want.


Yeah, I can figure that out.

Here's as much as I want to bring in:











Once again the book's title is "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by W. M. Ramsay and you can get it off the internet.


Go on? Fair dinkum?
 
I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237. The book is no longer under copyright so you can bring in as much as you want.

Once again the book's title is "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" by W. M. Ramsay and you can get it off the internet.

Important enough for you to mention, but yet not important enough (or clear enough of a refutation) to take the time to type the quote out?

All aboard the fail-train. Next stop: Doc's next post in this thread.
 
Do you have any record of the Jews mentioning crucifixion in the Old Testament?

You're the one who is claiming they did.

ETA:
You can't contrive the time period you lived in. You can't contrive being born in country where Bethlehem exists. You can't contrive how the Romans decided to put you to death. For example some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.

ETA: The Jews killed by stoning, not crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
I have never seen Ramsay say that. Have you a direct link?

Any evidence that the bible authors told the truth when they claim he was born in Bethlehem?

DOC has the link. I'm quoting him.
 
Do you have any record of the Jews mentioning crucifixion in the Old Testament?
Why ask me, it is your claim.

I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237. The book is no longer under copyright so you can bring in as much as you want.

Once again the book's title is "" by W. M. Ramsay and you can get it off the internet.
If it is important you can type the segment in. However nothing on the next two pages contradicts his earlier statement that there is no historical evidence.

You said I lied when I said he said there was no evidence. I brought in the quote, yet you still refuse to apologise. You want your words left there for all to see. Your lack of apology certainly stands out.
 
You said I lied when I said he said there was no evidence. I brought in the quote, yet you still refuse to apologise. You want your words left there for all to see. Your lack of apology certainly stands out.

I didn't say you lied, I said your statement was false. I'll explain as time permits. I have several posts I have to respond to, and I do have projects outside of this system.
 
I didn't say you lied, I said your statement was false. I'll explain as time permits. I have several posts I have to respond to, and I do have projects outside of this system.
As established, my statement was not false, yet still no apology. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering the regularity of the false statements you make.
 
Last edited:
The Crucifixion Psalm - Psalm 22

Let me talk a little about my comment regarding the crucifixion, prophecy, and the OT.

Psalm 22 has been called the Crucifixion Psalm because many Christians believe it is prophesying about the crucifixion of Christ. I would recommend people to read the whole psalm and the following website but here are some of the main points in the article.

From the Moorings Website: The Crucifixion of Christ
Lesson 2: Psalm 22 as Prophecy

"* "They pierced my hands and my feet." Could there be clearer proof that the psalm describes a crucifixion? In what other mode of execution does the victim suffer a piercing of his hands and feet? Earlier, we showed that Jesus was held to the cross by three nails, one through each forearm and one through both heels.
* "I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me." "Tell" means "count exactly" (7). Another peculiar feature of crucifixion is that before the executioners hoisted the victim into the air, they confiscated at least his outer garments. Jesus also suffered this indignity (John 19:23). A further account of Jesus' garments comes next.
* "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." It was customary at a Roman crucifixion for the attending soldiers to divide the garments of the condemned man among themselves (8). Accordingly, the garments of Jesus were apportioned into four shares (John 19:23). The soldiers determined who would take His outer coat by casting lots (John 19:24)....

...An uninformed reader of Psalm 22 might suspect that the writer is knowingly describing a crucifixion. The facts prove otherwise, however. This method of punishment was not invented until the sixth century B.C., long after any plausible date for Psalm 22 (9). So what we have in this psalm is supernatural knowledge of the future—real prophecy, in other words."

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/Crucifixion/Ps22.html

As the book cited in post #1 explains, there are two options for those who believe in this prophecy. And I am saying this from memory since I don't have the book with me.

1) David is writing this psalm as a prophet would reveal a prophecy.

2) This is a prophecy that could only be understood or revealed through the manifestation of the Life of Christ.

In either case the supernatural is at work.

On another note we have the prophetic verse in Isaiah Chapter 53, "by his stripes we are healed". So it can be argued that both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are prophetic of the crucifixion, even though the Jews were unaware of that form of execution at the time the verses were written.
 
Last edited:
I noticed you left out a very important segment of the book immediately following the above quote on page 236 and on to page 237. I can't cut and paste off the PDF format I have. Maybe someone else can figure out how to bring in this very important part and onto page 237.


If you look in front to you, you will most likely see a roughly oblong object with a range of buttons bearing the legend "QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM". By selectively pressing these buttons, you should be able to make the text you require appear on the forum.
 
"* "They pierced my hands and my feet." Could there be clearer proof that the psalm describes a crucifixion? In what other mode of execution does the victim suffer a piercing of his hands and feet? Earlier, we showed that Jesus was held to the cross by three nails, one through each forearm and one through both heels.

Forearms = hands? I suppose the other nail was through his drumsticks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom